MP3 and Ogg comparison

[martino]

Hi,

I will be getting my iAudio 6 shortly, and I wanted to know what would be the equivalent of a 128bps and 160bps MP3 song of an Ogg file format, regarding quality?


I mean something like: 160bps MP3 = 128bps OGG


Thanks

[afruff23]

It all depends on your ears, but your equation seems about right, except that OGG is VBR which is better than CBR. MP3 can use VBR as well also.

[The D]

http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-128-1/results.htm

[martino]

Hmmm...those results are kinda confusing. So a 128bps MP3 would be roughly similar as a 80bps OGG?

[notguilty]

Maybe, maybe not. Rip some stuff to lossless, then start playing around and see. They work differently, and sound different. There is no absolute answer, and with the advancements coming from the LAME project and Vorbis folks, both are very good lossy codecs.

To quote The D's link: "Individual preferences vary somewhat. The best codec for a person is dependent on his own preferences and the type of music he prefers."
--and--
"The results do not show anything new - all encoders are tied on first place,"

[dfkt]

This might be of interest: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Listening_Tests

Very extensive listening tests for most lossy formats out there...

[vinnie97]

Hmmm...those results are kinda confusing. So a 128bps MP3 would be roughly similar as a 80bps OGG?
VERY roughly...but for me, Vorbis at 80 kbps is perfect for my portable solution with few, if any, artifacts detectable. I believe Vorbis does more to the stereo image than other formats, especially at these lower bitrates...but without having the original to compare, it's not bothersome at all since there is still a vivid stereo image, even at 80 kbps.

[608zz]

I agree, OGG is great for low-bitrate music files.

OGG is variable-bitrate, so a size comparison of it with mp3 would need to be done on a song-by-song basis.

OGG quality2 sounds better to me than 128kbps mp3. And here’s a size comparison I did once:

Artist: Parliament
Album: Up for the Down Stroke
1. Up for the Down Stroke 5:10 Size-4.8MB 128kbps mp3
1. Up for the Down Stroke 5:10 Size-3.3MB q2 OGG
2. Testify 3:49 Size-3.5MB 128kbps mp3
2. Testify 3:49 Size-2.4MB q2 OGG
3. The Goose 9:13 Size-8.5MB 128kbps mp3
3. The Goose 9:13 Size-6MB q2 OGG
4. I Can Move You (If You Let Me) 2:47 Size-2.6MB 128kbps mp3
4. I Can Move You (If You Let Me) 2:47 Size-1.7MB q2 OGG
5. I Just Got Back 4:33 Size-4.2MB 128kbps mp3
5. I Just Got Back 4:33 Size-3MB q2 OGG
6. All Your Goodies Are Gone 5:07 Size-4.7MB 128kbps mp3
6. All Your Goodies Are Gone 5:07 Size-3.2MB q2 OGG
7. Whatever Makes Baby Feel Good 6:01 Size-5.6MB 128kbps mp3
7. Whatever Makes Baby Feel Good 6:01 Size-3.9MB q2 OGG
8. Presence of a Brain 3:19 Size-3.1MB 128kbps mp3
8. Presence of a Brain 3:19 Size-2.1MB q2 OGG

[Pete7874]

I mean something like: 160bps MP3 = 128bps OGG

For me, it's closer to 192 kbps MP3 = 128 kbps Ogg Vorbis.

Even a 96 kbps Ogg Vorbis is quite acceptable in quality, IMO (assuming you encoded directly off of a CD and not converted from some other lossy format). I would say that a 96 kbps Ogg Vorbis sounds better than a 160 Kbps MP3 (CBR).

Also check out this (unscientific) mp3 vs ogg vorbis comparison I did a while back:
http://www.iaudiophile.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7084

[martino]

I see...

I just wanted to know, because I used to have my music stored on my PDA in 48kbps OGG and the quality was pretty good, unless I decided to listen to some metal on high volume. Now that I'll be getting the iAudio 6 I might still stay with MP3 as long as I've got space...then I would switch to OGG.

Thanks guys!

[vlada]

For me, it's closer to 192 kbps MP3 = 128 kbps Ogg Vorbis.

Even a 96 kbps Ogg Vorbis is quite acceptable in quality, IMO (assuming you encoded directly off of a CD and not converted from some other lossy format). I would say that a 96 kbps Ogg Vorbis sounds better than a 160 Kbps MP3 (CBR).

Also check out this (unscientific) mp3 vs ogg vorbis comparison I did a while back:
http://www.iaudiophile.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7084

Why would anyone use CBR? There is no reason for it, except of streaming. VBR is always higher quality then CBR.

If you want to compare something, use latest LAME (3.97b2) and Vorbis (AoTuVb4.51) and try Vorbis Q2 (~100 kbps) vs. LAME V5 (~130 kbps). This should be comparable.

[Pete7874]

Why would anyone use CBR? There is no reason for it, except of streaming. VBR is always higher quality then CBR.
Back in the day, I believe some of the hardware mp3 players (like home DVD players) had issues with VBR, so CBR was used for compatibility reasons. There is no argument that VBR is better. I always encode my stuff using VBR.

[sknight]

I was wondering the same thing, but with the ATRAC3+ HiMD format as I'm moving away from the evil Sony empire and Minidisc now. ATRAC3+ is the latest version and the Hi-SP 256kbps codec sounds really good...

[Zeus's Uncle]

The x5 has problems with VBR streams in video files. If the spike of the audio data is large enough it will cause the video to have a skip. This is why I use 192 CBR in my x5.avi's

[vlada]

I was wondering the same thing, but with the ATRAC3+ HiMD format as I'm moving away from the evil Sony empire and Minidisc now. ATRAC3+ is the latest version and the Hi-SP 256kbps codec sounds really good...

In an anonymous public listening test ("http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html) organized by Roberto Amorim, the ATRAC3 codec finished as the worst from MPC, Vorbis, AAC, MP3, WMA and ATRAC3. I don't know much about ATRAC3+, but I seriously doubt it will be much better.

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/plot18z.png

I don't see any reasons why anyone would like to use anything alese then Vorbis (if your player supports it). And I wouldn't buy any player without Vorbis support. Vorbis is completely free, there are no licensing fees, unlike MP3, MP4 (AAC) or WMA. It is the highest quality codec for bitrates above 80 kbps. It has very wide support, there is probably no SW player which wouldn't support OGG Vorbis. Every good HW player supports it too. The only competitor is MP3, which has little lower quality then Vorbis, but has even better support in both SW and HW players.

[sknight]

Thanks for the informative post. It's certainly helped me to figure out what format to load stuff on my to be x5 60. I still have the reservation about the gaps between songs, however.

ATRAC3+ was a departure from ATRAC3. The sound quality was definitely better and offered more codec options. In my side by sides, it certainly did sound much better.

[vlada]

OGG Vorbis should supports gapeless playback natively. LAME MP3 encoder does it too, but only very few players support it (SW - foobar2000, Winamp 5.2; HW - Rio Karma and Rockbox firmware).

Unfortunately I have no information on how would HW players play OGG Vorbis.

[sknight]

Well, I have my x5 coming in this week, so I shall see how well it works gapless. I don't plan on rockboxing it until the warranty is done, so I guess I'm up the creek, so to speak, for gapless.

[vlada]

And what about a single OGG Vorbis file with chapters? This might work.

[dfkt]

iAudio players don't support chapters or cue-sheets.

[Pete7874]

Well, I have my x5 coming in this week, so I shall see how well it works gapless.
You could rip an entire CD into one file. That would solve the gap issue; however, you'd be left with another big issue - not being able to skip between tracks. :)

[Gnufsh]

Why would anyone use CBR? There is no reason for it, except of streaming. VBR is always higher quality then CBR.

If you want to compare something, use latest LAME (3.97b2) and Vorbis (AoTuVb4.51) and try Vorbis Q2 (~100 kbps) vs. LAME V5 (~130 kbps). This should be comparable.
I'd like to see q3 compared to a LAME 128k mp3.